The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leaders are upset that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi does not meet them. But has the RSS chief ever expressed his desire to meet Gandhi? Has he asked for an appointment with him? If not the chief, has some other RSS member done so? There is no proof that any such message was sent to Gandhi, nor that he ignored it or refused to meet with them. Since the RSS has never mentioned being rebuffed by Gandhi despite their initiative, we can assume that the question of whether Gandhi met with them would only arise if a request from the Sangh had actually been made.
In the last two years, we have seen different kinds of people meeting the Congress MP. During the Bharat Jodo Yatra, many of his critics and opponents met him. So did many intellectuals, businessmen, social workers and political activists. We did not hear of any incident where someone who wanted to meet Gandhi was not allowed to do so.
Did any RSS official go to meet him during this yatra? Gandhi had said that anyone who believes in uniting India could join the yatra. Why did the RSS officials not walk two steps with him? Was this not an open invitation? Could it be because the RSS does not believe in the idea of uniting everyone in India or the world?
If the RSS has not taken any initiative and yet regrets that Gandhi had not met them, then it probably wants to ask: Why did Rahul Gandhi not express his desire to meet them? Why did he not go to its office in Jhandewalan or Hedgewar Bhawan in Nagpur?
The RSS may have begun to believe that it has gained such importance in today’s India that everyone must mark their presence in its court. We see people from all walks of life seeking its blessing. People from theatre and cultural institutions say that they need the RSS’s endorsement or advocacy of the Sanskar Bharati for government grants and assistance. RSS blessings are also necessary for a position in Delhi University or any educational or research institute.
My students have told me that anyone seeking a teaching position, let alone the position of directors or vice chancellors, must mandatorily get the patronage of some influential person of the RSS. Academic qualifications or administrative experience are now irrelevant or secondary, it seems. I too have seen many people who had no ties with RSS before 2014, but now visit its various affiliate organisations and officials. Industrialists also make a point to meet with RSS members.
Is the RSS harbouring a misplaced belief that its permission is necessary to be able to practice politics in India?
Beyond these questions, we must also remember that the RSS’s ambition is to be accepted as an umbrella organisation for all communities in India. That is why it has branded itself as a cultural organisation. Culture is defined as a way of life; all spheres of human activity can be domains of the RSS. But in reality, it is a political organisation whose ambition is to capture India. As soon as it comes out as a political body, it will have to face competition. But it wants to portray itself as being above competition. That is why it insists that it is non-political.
RSS wants to be recognised by all, even from those it attacks. It simultaneously wants everyone to seek recognition from it to prove their legitimacy. Therefore, if someone is not talking to the RSS, there must be something wrong with them. How can RSS ever be at fault?
The Sangh parivar would remember that there was another person who was steadfast in his refusal to meet the RSS chief – former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. After Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, M.S. Golwalkar along with some other RSS members had been jailed. Once he was let out, Golwalkar desperately tried to humour Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel. He was also trying to get the ban on RSS revoked. But Nehru did not respond to Golwalkar’s repeated requests to meet him.
Prior to this, Nehru had once agreed to meet Golwalkar in 1947. This meeting, which took place at Golwalkar’s request, was quite tense. Golwalkar tried to persuade Nehru that India needs an organisation like the RSS so that it could increase its influence in the world. Nehru rebuked Golwalkar and said that such a force should never be satanic. While Golwalkar argued that the Sangh had no role in the communal violence preceding Gandhi’s murder, Nehru did not entertain such lies.
When writing to his officials about this meeting, Nehru did not even mention Golwalkar by name and later saw no need to reply to Golwalkar’s letters. During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi acted similarly; the RSS chief wrote to her praising her and urging her to lift the ban on the organisation so it could contribute positively to her work. Indira did not respond, though she later formed a strategic relationship with the RSS. Nehru, however, did not consider the RSS worthy of engagement, viewing it as a narrow, hateful, and uncivilised organisation.
In Dhirendra Jha’s biography of Golwalkar, he recounts Gandhi’s meeting with the RSS idealogue on 12 September 1947. During their conversation, Gandhi confronted Golwalkar about the RSS’s involvement in communal violence, which Golwalkar denied. Gandhi then urged Golwalkar to publicly condemn the attacks on Muslims. Golwalkar declined but asked Gandhi to do it on their behalf based on what Golkwalkar had told him. Gandhi, unconvinced by Golwalkar’s evasive replies, refused. He compared the RSS’s discipline to that of Hitler’s Nazis, reinforcing his view of the organisation as a communal, totalitarian body.
Leaving aside the uncompromising attitude of Nehru and Gandhi, there were leaders in India who wanted to believe in the Sangh’s claim of innocence or its promise to change itself. Patel was one of them. To get the ban lifted, RSS went as far as accepting Patel’s conditions. But its actions proved that it had never accepted Patel’s idea of India as a secular nation.
Much later in 1974, Jayaprakash Narayan too gave up his initial harsh stand towards RSS and joined hands with it to topple Indira Gandhi. His condition was that RSS should give up its communalism and welcome Muslims into its fold. The then RSS chief Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras gave him a commitment, but in 1977 RSS reneged on this promise.
If we look at the interactions of the RSS with Indian leaders, we find that it has betrayed every person who gave it a chance to redeem itself. Imagine Patel or Nehru as vindictive and undemocratic leaders. Would it then be possible for Golwalkar to come out of jail and RSS to survive as an organisation?
RSS may want to forget, but history has recorded innumerable examples of its breach of trust and deceitful conduct.
When the RSS claims that it meets every political party, what does it really mean? Is it not true that it works only for the victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)? Is it not true that there is no difference between the RSS and the BJP? Can the RSS work for any other party? Are politicians like Narendra Modi, Lal Krishna Advani or Atal Bihari Vajpayee BJP leaders or RSS swayamsevaks? Can we ever forget Vajpayee’s boast that he was first a swayamsevak? RSS’s claim that it does not differentiate between parties is of little value.
Rahul Gandhi is the leader of the Congress party. The RSS wants to establish its dominance by destroying the Congress party and its secular legacy. No matter how weak the Congress is in this matter, it believes in keeping Indians of every faith together on an equal footing. Meanwhile, the RSS only talks about the unity of Hindus, that too by generating a fear of imaginary enemies in them.
Even if Gandhi meets the leaders of the Sangh, he will probably tell them what Gandhi, Patel, and Jaiprakash had asked RSS to do: leave the path of hatred, violence and separatism and walk on the path of humanity. Is the RSS ready to listen to this advice? If not, then what dialogue could there be between him and the RSS?
